RonK wrote:But the way most of us would interpret the result is that, as I speculated in another thread, around 90% of the BNA forum members who have responded wear lycra cycle clothing at least some of the time

I would also interpret it that way. Thanks for running the poll, but I think most people on this forum know that Lycra is the majority.

RonK wrote:and do not share your anti-lycra predjudices.

For umpteenth time Ronk. I do not have anti-lycra prejudices. I believe I have said that numerous times and I believe that most people here understand that I don't have a prejudice against lyca. Also, most people here are not offended by my choice NOT to wear Lycra.

For those who have read and comprehended my posts they would understand that I believe Lycra suits many cycling enthusiasts for much if not all of their riding. But not all enthusiasts a TdF style road warrier. I'm an 'Urban Cycling' enthusiast so I personally don't wear Lycra often. There is also plenty of scope for growth in Australia for non enthusiast cyclists riding without Lycra. However for various reasons already discussed this growth is still stunted.

human909 wrote:For those who have read and comprehended my posts they would understand that I believe Lycra suits many cycling enthusiasts for much if not all of their riding. But not all enthusiasts a TdF style road warrier. I'm an 'Urban Cycling' enthusiast so I personally don't wear Lycra often. There is also plenty of scope for growth in Australia for non enthusiast cyclists riding without Lycra. However for various reasons already discussed this growth is still stunted.

It is ridiculous to categorise anyone by their choice of fabric. I don't wear lycra, for example, but I'm still a performance cyclist. I wear wool.

kosh wrote:It is ridiculous to categorise anyone by their choice of fabric. I don't wear lycra, for example, but I'm still a performance cyclist. I wear wool.

I think that is what human909 is trying to point out, maybe not to everyone's liking though. I tour with many really enthusiastic cyclists, people who commute long distances and short, people who ride Audax events, people who have no car just the bike. Some of us wear lycra, some wear shirt and knicks, I wear wool and polyester jerseys and lycra knicks, some wear t-shirt and MTB baggies, some (not so many) wear a collared shirt and trousers, some wear skirts (the ladies), and others just wear a polo shirt and casual shorts.

But what human909 is talking about is not what cycling enthusiasts wear, but rather the inferences and decisions about cycling choice made by the less frequent cyclists. Real choices - for example one of my brothers has a MTB and rides occasionally, but he has no desire to wear lycra knicks and road jersey for his bike path burbles. It's just not on the radar.

Not just the less frequent cyclists. There are many who commute in casual clothes. I generally commute in shorts and a Tshirt, occasionally a cycling jersey. I see many people on my daily commute who commute most days and do not wear "lycra", using lycra here as a catch all phrase for cycling specific clothing. The point is that we already have a healthy number of cyclists riding around in their cycling specific clothing and doing their sport, often combining it with a commute or transport. What we need is to get more people on bikes who just want to ride from A to B and do it in normal clothes. The problem with cycling specific clothing is that it gives the impression that you need to kit up to cycle regularly. We all know this is an erroneous impression and like any sport "lycra" is worn because of it's appropriateness for purpose. I suppose the problem is that the cyclist riding for fun, sport or transport who wears "normal" everyday clothes needs to become more visible to promote cycling as an everyday option for exercise and transport.

The problem is that too many people don't understand that we need to wear lycra to cycle longer distances regularly. If I wore non-cycling specific clothing on my commute or recreational rides, my saddle-sores would become truly epic. I realise my commute, at 60km round trip per day with an average 900-1000m climbing, is longer and hillier than most people's, but even shorter distances than this could become uncomfortable without cycling specific clothing.

I'm very open to the idea of encouraging non-cyclists to begin cycling in non-cycling specific clothing if they find lycra a bit off-putting. I also hope those same people, and those who never take up cycling, lose any prejudices they may hold against those who wear lycra by necessity because their cycling range has naturally increased over time.

VRE wrote:The problem is that too many people don't understand that we need to wear lycra to cycle longer distances regularly.

I think most people actually do understand that for road racers. They personally only wish to ride 5kms each way, but their cycling mates keep saying they must wear lycra.

VRE wrote:If I wore non-cycling specific clothing on my commute or recreational rides, my saddle-sores would become truly epic. I realise my commute, at 60km round trip per day with an average 900-1000m climbing, is longer and hillier than most people's, but even shorter distances than this could become uncomfortable without cycling specific clothing.

I realise this is your situation, however I have friends who ride this sort of distance without knicks - just in regular shorts (and jocks I presume). I don't, but friends DO.

http://www.velominati.com/the-rules/Isn't a pair of Lycra pants a deviation from the rules? All you big tough guys always bringing into mention how tall you are and the kays you do, and all with a one inch thick padded bum.Revisit rule #5 I would say. Who do you see cutting a hole out where the pain is generated from? Softies ......looks like a nappy.....

Rule #61// Like your guns, saddles should be smooth and hard.

Under no circumstances may your saddle have more than 3mm of padding. Special allowances will be made for stage racing when physical pain caused by subcutaneous cysts and the like (“saddle sores”) are present. Under those conditions, up to 5mm of padding will be allowed – it should be noted that this exception is only temporary until the condition has passed or been excised. A hardman would not change their saddle at all but instead cut a hole in it to relieve pressure on the delicate area. It is noted that if Rule #48 and/or Rule #5 is observed then any “padding” is superfluous.7

No it is not against "The Rules", although i do feel that mocking other cyclists for wearing cycling specific clothing, on a cycling specific forum referring to them as "nappies" somewhat insulting.

Especially given your own previous view on lycra.

outnabike wrote:...how could any one criticise Lycra with out trying it first. I can see the benefits on longer rides for sure. And the mileage comfort factor would certainly come into it.I think my first trial would be a cop out with shorts over though!

Mrfenejeans wrote:No it is not against "The Rules", although i do feel that mocking other cyclists for wearing cycling specific clothing, on a cycling specific forum referring to them as "nappies" somewhat insulting.

Especially given your own previous view on lycra.

outnabike wrote:...how could any one criticise Lycra with out trying it first. I can see the benefits on longer rides for sure. And the mileage comfort factor would certainly come into it.I think my first trial would be a cop out with shorts over though!

Perhaps you should Insert Rule number 5 there.

I would say that a bit of jest shouldn't allow you to get too upset,when a thread is started with the intent to " educate some of the members." I was simply quoting the "rules", educationally, as after 11 pages of rift making, should be just about enough for us all , don't you think?They also state in rule 48 "If the tilt of the saddle exceeds two degrees, you need to go get one of those saddles with springs and a thick gel pad because you are obviously a big pussy."Would not the unfortunate wearing of a gel bum pad also constitute the wearer a "Pussy"

Folks I made a joke about Lycra and it is not intended to be derogatory. The thing is, whilst new to the forum I am not new to the perceptions that are imposed on the wearers of the garb. But do we all have to be so almost religiously enslaved to a dress code that we look down on them that don’t wear the stuff? I reckon if you like it wear it, but the perception is out there that it is some sort of bike rider accepted uniform. Like it or not, we recognise groups by their attire. Firemen wear red, hells angels wear leather and tats, foot ball club members wear their clubs colours. You belong if you look like you belong.So we see all those in a certain garb as belonging, and being part of a certain group. That’s all good, but then that group cops the stigma of any wrongdoing on a bike. The general public never sees good riding, but they do when someone does the wrong thing. So you get the Lycra lout tag.How did this fetish for Lycra start? Obviously the top racers want to cut air resistance, but why do we all need to do that. Don't kid yourselves that it is a comfort thing either. Plenty of riders are out there with gel saddle covers, who don't need Lycra.By the way with all the talk of sore posteriors, we don't ever see the mention of gel seats among the big kay riders do we? Must be a BSO thing.

Riding is for fun and getting fit, so why do most of us need to be aero dynamic. It’s like the kids putting fins on the boot of their cars so they will go faster. But they won’t!

I look at the posts of many who clearly look down on non wearers as something lower than “Good riders” Their fat, lazy and invariably ride BSO’s, it’s always mentioned that they are not wearing a helmet, must be noted if the bike has rust, and blow me down me if the aren’t always wobbling along. They are slow, don’t know the rules and are always getting in your road. And yes you can hear e’m coming on the path with their stupid mountain bike tyres.....

But when you see these folks, your good selves are just looking in a mirror........ It’s the beginning of the love of cycling. You were probably that bloke, and probably only a few years back!

I love BSO’s; they will get the bug, and be on a good bike in a few months’. And the next bike will be from a bike shop, not Woolly’s. Hell, some of them will soon be in Lycra......

So you see, most who comment on not wearing Lycra don't hate the stuff. Some of us do not care for the attitude that some feel needs to be displayed to all the non wearers though.

I have no antipathy or other negative feelings towards those who don't wear lycra. I'm more than happy to share the roads and paths with cyclists on different bikes and wearing different clothes, so long as they all show consideration and respect for other road and path users.

I have to wear lycra, because it's extremely painful for me not to, given the distances I do. If there are actually people out there who manage to cycle very long distances without lycra, I'd love to know how they manage it! Please, someone tell me, because I've had some pretty nasty saddle-sores in the past, and have found that only lycra sans underwear will minimise them to a bearable level.

outnabike wrote:By the way with all the talk of sore posteriors, we don't ever see the mention of gel seats among the big kay riders do we? Must be a BSO thing.

I have used a gel-saddle (long ago now) for long distance riding - they were a new thing and quite expensive in the late 80s, not a junk bike item. I can assure you they are lousy. You sink into the gel and stay in the one place leading to greater saddle pain. They tend to insulate your bum, causing greater heat and sweatiness.

There are many much better saddles out there, notably my lovely Brooks leather saddle.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.